Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Now, as to the "key assertion," you say you challenged it, but it seems to agree with your own, just upthread:
Quote:
|
Of course, external observers cannot see the closure; it would be encountered subjectively, only.
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
One can say nothing about subjective passage of Old to New since no one, by definition, can experience another's subjective state.
|
You've conflated observation of an event with the event itself. It's a confused line of reasoning that really should be abandoned, but with stated reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Basically, though, under your own scenario, there really is no "gap" here, except objective. Outside observers can see Old Paul "change" into New Paul. But Old Paul does not feel himself to make this transition, hence there is no opposite gap shore. And New Paul awakes a clean slate, hence there is no prior shore that he can recall.
|
As for Old Paul:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Old Paul does not feel himself to make this transition, hence there is no opposite gap shore.
|
Old Paul would not feel an unfelt time-gap, obviously. No one would, or does. That's why James spoke of it as... unfelt. You're therefore asserting, effectively, that James' unfelt time-gap cannot exist. I haven't seen such an argument in the professional literature, or even in forum, I think. Do you intend to argue for this, explicitly?
As for New Paul:
Quote:
|
New Paul awakes a clean slate, hence there is no prior shore that he can recall.
|
His amnesia would be irrelevant to the reality of time-gap closure, as with any event. Whereas previously you confused the observation of an event with the event itself, now you've confused the memory of an event with the event itself.
The memory of an event does not determine the reality of an event. In court the defendant may say, "I don't recall," but that doesn't get him off the hook.